Canada is getting further away from meeting its climate target under the Paris Accord, despite an overall reduction in emissions, according to the government’s latest submission to the United Nations as part of its reporting requirements under the international climate treaty.

While most sectors of the Canadian economy have reduced their carbon output, the latest report shows growth in oil and gas and “demographic changes” are responsible for a widening gap between Canada’s greenhouse gas output and the country’s 2030 climate targets.

A spokesperson for Environment and Climate Change Canada declined to specify just how much of the new emissions growth is projected to come from population growth and how much is due to growth of oil and gas.

But Keith Stewart, energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, said he’s skeptical much of the projected growth in Canada’s emissions comes from outside oil and gas — the single most polluting sector in the country.

“I have trouble believing there have been dramatic changes in projections of demographic growth,” says Keith Stewart, energy campaigner with Greenpeace.

Canada’s growing emissions gap

Canada committed to reduce its emissions to 517 megatonnes (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent — about what is emitted annually from 128 coal-fired plants — by 2030 under the Paris Accord.

When Canada presented its climate plan, the Pan-Canadian Framework, in 2016, it estimated it would miss its reductions goal by 44 MT in 2030.

But in this year’s submission, Canada estimates it will now miss that mark by 66 MT — a 50 per cent increase from last year’s projection.

The new projections reveal a growing gap between Canada’s goals for 2030 and what government thinks will actually happen based on internal modeling.

“The gap is getting bigger and it’s because of oil and gas,” says Stewart.

Canada wants to blame transportation but…

In Canada’s report to the UN, the government highlights the challenge of transporting goods and people between its spread-out urban centres.

“Currently at 36.7 million inhabitants, it is anticipated that Canada’s population could reach between 40.1 and 47.7 million by 2038,” the report explains.

“The large distance between metropolitan areas and low population density generates high emissions from the transportation sector making it the second largest contributor of GHG emissions in Canada.”

One might get the impression population growth will increase transportation and therefore  emissions.

But according to the same report, emissions from the transportation sector are already plateauing, and expected to fall over the next ten years.

Emissions from oil and gas, however, are steadily rising, and predicted to continue to do so.

Pipeline capacity ‘will be built as needed’

The oil and gas industry is one of just two sectors from which Canada expects to see growing emissions (the other, heavy industry, will go up by less than a fifth of the oil and gas sector), raising questions about Canada’s commitment to meet climate targets while also growing the oil and gas industry with new pipeline capacity.

In fact, increasing pipeline capacity is an assumption baked into projections for both Canada’s energy production and emissions growth.

When asked to explain how new pipeline projects, like the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, factor into projected emissions growth, a spokesperson for Environment and Climate Change Canada said their modeling assumes pipelines will be built to accommodate oil production projected by the National Energy Board.

“For oil and gas production projections in particular, we align our forecast with National Energy Board’s projections, which were revised this year,” the spokesperson wrote in an e-mail.

“With regard to your question on Kinder Morgan, the National Energy Board’s projections assume pipeline capacity aligns with oil production but does not factor in specific pipeline projects.”

The National Energy Board’s projections, released in Canada’s Energy Future 2016: Energy Supply and Demand Projections to 2040, state, “over the long term, all energy production will find markets and infrastructure will be built as needed.”

Yet Stewart says that laissez-faire attitude is contradicted by lobbying and public relations campaigns from oil and gas companies, which stress the need for new pipelines in order to grow the industry.

“Pipeline approvals increase production,” he says. “That’s why you do them.”

That increase in production is the wedge holding open that emissions gap, preventing Canada from meeting climate targets.

New pipelines a part of Canada’s climate plan?

When approving the Trans Mountain pipeline, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the project was essential to meeting Canada’s climate goals.

“Today’s decision is an integral part of our plan to uphold the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions while creating jobs and protecting the environment,” Trudeau told reporters at a November 2016 press conference.

Alongside Trans Mountain Trudeau also approved an application to increase the capacity of the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline.

According to Environment and Climate Change Canada, the two pipelines represent an annual increase in emissions of 23 to 28 megatonnes — the equivalent of adding 58 million cars to the road.

Trudeau has since refined his claim, arguing new pipeline approvals are a tradeoff to keep Albertans onside with national climate policies.

“So in order to get the national climate change plan — to get Alberta to be part of it, and we need Alberta to be part of it — we agreed to twin an existing pipeline in order to get to work,” Trudeau told the National Observer in February.

But there is evidence that Canadians, even Albertans, are coming around on climate change. A recent Abacus poll found 72 per cent of Albertans saw economic opportunity in combatting climate change.

Not that all of the province’s politicians are listening. Political polls currently show the opposition United Conservative party under Jason Kenney — who has roundly rejected carbon taxes and has a climate denier as campaign manager — leading by a wide margin.

“If Canada is pinning its climate action plan on an NDP dynasty, that, to my mind, is not a wise move,” says Stewart, who is not optimistic about the chances of Kenney having a change of heart if he were to be elected. “There is nothing the federal government can do that is going to get Jason Kenney onside for climate action.”

Some reductions not yet included in models

In an emailed statement, Environment and Climate Change Canada provided some good news to go with the bad: it says some of the government’s climate policies haven’t yet been factored into the models.

“There are some measures in the Pan-Canadian Framework that are at early stages and thus difficult to model,” the agency’s spokesperson wrote.

“For example, historic investments in public transit, support for clean technology, and the potential for increased carbon sequestration from forests, soil and wetlands are not factored into our projections yet, but we do expect to see emission reductions from those measures over time.”

Because of the unknown contribution those measures could have, it’s hard to rely on them for hope that the next projections will be closer to Canada’s Paris goals.

For Stewart, the solution to the missing reductions is political — to build consensus around the worthiness of climate action and get that message across to leaders.

“We have to build a political movement that says, ‘if you’re willing to take on the oil industry, we’ve got your back.’”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Alberta government and an unlikely crew of allies — including Greenpeace, an oil lobbying firm, Ecojustice and attorneys general of four different provinces — are squaring off with ATB Financial in a Supreme Court case that could let polluters off the hook when they go bankrupt.

The question being tried is whether creditors, like banks, can pick and choose the best assets an oil company owns when it goes bust, or whether governments can use a company’s good assets to pay to clean up its messes before the banks get paid.

At the granular level, the specific case at issue began when Redwater Energy went under in 2015. Its bank, ATB Financial, turned its nose up at nearly 80 per cent of its assets instead of taking the lot.

“Of the 97 or so properties owned by Redwater energy, [ATB] purported to accept only 20 wells — the profitable wells — and leave behind the unprofitable wells and a pipeline,” says Ecojustice lawyer Kurt Stillwell.

“The Alberta Energy Regulator ordered the trustee to properly abandon the wells. It refused.”

That attempt to ditch the bad assets kicked off a series of court cases and appeals, the most recent of which was argued before the Supreme Court in mid-February. The verdict isn’t expected for several months.

In an odd twist of fate, the case has the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers fighting on the same side as Ecojustice and Greenpeace.

“It’s unusual…we didn’t have necessarily the same arguments,” said Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace. “They’re trying to make sure solvent companies shouldn’t have to pay for these costs; we’re trying to make sure the environment doesn’t bear the cost.”

Ramifications for Other Sectors

The Alberta Energy Regulator’s CEO Jim Ellis put out a statement emphasizing the potential scope of the case.

“We can’t emphasize this enough: this is not an Alberta problem,” Ellis wrote. “This is not an oil and gas problem. It can be applied to industrial sites left behind by companies in other industries, allowing receivers to take and sell for the benefit of creditors the good assets and walk away from the bad ones and the end-of-life obligations associated with them.”

Greenpeace echoes the energy regulator; Stewart says the result could affect the way a whole swath of resource extraction companies are regulated.

“This case is really important because it’s not just oil and gas,” Stewart says. “The precedent it’s setting could apply to mines or forestry companies — boom and bust industries.”

The case could also determine how other sectors — like forestry or mining — manage their own environmental cleanup https://t.co/hjwmehsQHn

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 23, 2018

Spike in Orphan Wells

Ellis blames the original ruling (in favour of the bank) for causing a jump in the number of oil wells that have been “disclaimed” or not remediated (“abandoned,” in industry-speak, is actually a good thing, meaning the well has been capped and is ready for remediation).

For the oil industry, this means an extra financial burden for the companies that haven’t gone bankrupt — and in a financial downturn, that is usually smaller players, not the Exxons and BPs of the world — via the Orphan Well Association, an industry-funded organization that manages wells that haven’t been properly abandoned and reclaimed. The number of wells on the Orphan Well Association’s books has shot up more than threefold since the Redwater ruling, from 1,200 to 3,700.

Since funding is collected from well owners depending on their estimated liabilities, a crash in oil prices, like in 2014, and a series of bankruptcies like that of Redwater Energy, can mean provincial taxpayers are left holding the bag for cleanups.

Tony Bruder has experienced that firsthand on his own land. Two inactive sour gas wells on his property were left idle for decades before the Alberta Energy Regulator ordered its owners to clean up the mess, and when the company failed to comply, the regulator did the job itself.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that the companies have to be held responsible,” says Bruder. “And in order for that to happen properly, the Alberta government, which gave those companies the right to drill…they have to be willing to stand behind the decisions they’ve made, and hold those companies accountable.”

But the Redwater case could mean the provincial government loses its authority to hold companies responsible. The deciding factor will be whether the government’s jurisdiction over environmental regulation means it can overrule federal bankruptcy laws.

The case is being anxiously watched by all sides. In an emailed statement, ATB Financial said the ruling will provide certainty to a law that has been on the books for over 25 years.

“Whatever the decision of the Supreme Court, the clarity and certainty it will provide is important to all parties in the oil and gas sector and financial institutions who lend to those companies,” it said.

“We, and all the other creditors to the industry, are interested observers in the outcome.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A court in Toronto will soon begin deliberating over whether or not to seize Chevron's Canadian assets in order to force the company to comply with an $9.5-billion judgement in Ecuador.

The company doesn’t deny that Texaco, which Chevron bought in 2000, deliberately dumped billions of gallons of toxic oil waste in the Ecuadorian Amazon, resulting in massive environmental devastation and a health crisis affecting thousands of people. But the company claims it did its part to clean up the rainforest.

But the settlement Chevron had with the Ecuadorian government and the state-run oil company, PetroEcuador, does not preclude citizens affected by that oil pollution from seeking damages. Ecuadorian plaintiffs first filed a suit against the company in 1993. Chevron lost a high-profile trial in Ecuador in 2011, and every Ecuadorian court that has considered the evidence since then — including an appeals court and the country's Supreme Court — has ruled against Chevron.

Yet still the company refuses to pay. Chevron has even gone venue shopping in an attempt to avoid paying for a cleanup of its toxic mess — filing an investor-state dispute at the Hague, pressing RICO charges against the Ecuadorians and their lawyers in a New York court. But the communities in Ecuador affected by Chevron’s pollution have not remained idle, and have instead pursued Chevron in Canada to try and collect on the company's debt.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously in 2015 that the Ecuadorian plaintiffs could pursue an enforcement action against Chevron. In the majority opinion, Justice Clément Gascon wrote: “In a world in which businesses, assets and people cross borders with ease, courts are increasingly called upon to recognize and enforce judgments from other jurisdictions. Sometimes, successful recognition and enforcement in another forum is the only means by which a foreign judgment creditor can obtain its due.”

Now, in an open letter released this week, more than a dozen Canadian organizations, including Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Idle No More Canada, MiningWatch, Sierra Club British Columbia, United Steelworkers, and Unifor, have called Chevron out for its attempts to abuse the civil justice system and evade paying the Ecuador judgment.

“While Chevron continues its international litigation ‘shell game’ thousands of people continue to be systematically poisoned and suffer daily from Chevron's refusal to pay a $9.5 billion judgment to clean up its toxic waste in Ecuador,” the letter states. “Chevron's refusal to honor the judgment against it has forced these communities to come to Canada in a last ditch effort to seize assets to force Chevron to comply with the rule of law.”

"We are grateful that the people of Canada, just like their Supreme Court, have chosen to side with those of us affected by Chevron's deplorable actions when it polluted our communities and water supply,” Humberto Piaguaje, President of the Union of Affected Communities in Ecuador, who will be attending the court sessions in Canada, said in a statement. “The indigenous peoples of Ecuador deserve full access to justice and a healthy environment so that we and our Amazonian neighbors can live with dignity.”

There are signs, however, that Chevron is already attempting to circumvent enforcement of any ruling against the company in Canada. Recent reports have stated that Chevron is currently trying to sell several billion-dollars-worth of its Canadian assets. After insisting the original trial over its pollution in the Amazon be held in an Ecuadorian court, Chevron stripped its assets from the country, which some saw as a deliberate attempt to avoid having to pay any adverse judgement against the company. The fear is that Chevron is attempting the same thing in Canada.

Canadian Civil Society: Freeze Chevron Assets, Use To Cover #Ecuador Judgement on #Amazon Destruction https://t.co/ZL1Y4l8TNS #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 13, 2016

In their letter, the groups call on Canadian authorities to stop Chevron from selling its Canadian assets before a decision can be reached in the trial, stating in the letter that it "would set a terrible precedent for other corporations intending to evade responsibility for environmental and human rights crimes."

Chevron’s tactics of delay and obfuscation are nothing new for the oil industry, of course. BP held out for two years before finally agreeing to pay $1 billion to fishermen and others affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. And the recent #ExxonKnew scandal erupted after it was discovered that the oil giant’s own scientists had been warning of the dangers of carbon pollution leading to runaway climate change since at least the 1970s — but Exxon continued to fund climate denial anyway.

Sierra Club BC Campaigns Director Caitlyn Vernon said that oil companies have operated with impunity for years, despite leaving a legacy of environmental destruction and human rights abuses. "Whether in Canada or around the world, oil companies such as Chevron, Enbridge and Kinder Morgan must be held accountable for oil spills, climate change impacts, and their treatment of local and indigenous populations," she said.

Now, environmentalists say, the Canadian court system has the opportunity to see some small measure of justice is done in this precedent-setting case.

"The Canadian environmental and human rights community has joined forces with the affected communities in Ecuador because we recognize this to be one of the most important corporate accountability cases in history," said Melina Laboucan-Massimo, Climate & Energy Campaigner with Greenpeace Canada. "Chevron must not be allowed to evade its legal and moral responsibilities simply because it has the might to fight on indefinitely in the courts.”  

Image Credit: Oil pollution in Lago Agrio, November 2007. Texaco operated dozens of drilling sites in the area before pulling out of Ecuador altogether. Photo via Wikimedia Commons.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A renewable energy economy may emerge from the heart of Canada’s oil industry thanks to announcements made in Alberta’s provincial budget last week. The budget promises spending $51.5 billion in 2016 despite resource royalties projected to be as low as $1.4 billion, representing a 90 per cent drop.   The province pledged $2.2 billion for clean infrastructure, $645 million for energy efficiency and unveiled an expanded carbon levy that the government estimates will generate $3.4 billion for renewable energy development. An additional $195 million has been set aside to help First Nations communities transition off coal and onto cleaner sources of energy.   “We’re very proud of our climate leadership plan as a progressive way to bend the curve on carbon,” Finance Minister Joe Ceci said in a press conference Thursday.   Sara Hastings-Simon, director of the clean economy program at the Pembina Institute, commended the province’s decision to expand the carbon levy to beyond industrial emitters.   “We know it is the most efficient way to reduce emissions in the province,” she said.

Although Alberta was the first jurisdiction in North America to implement a carbon tax, the levy applied only to emitters producing more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. New changes to the “polluter pays” legislation means the levy will now be economy-wide and set to scale up from $15 to $30 per tonne by 2018. 

The government forecasts the scaled-up tax will generate $9.6 billion in gross revenue over five years.   Hastings-Simon said the new legislation — which taxes all consumers at the same rate as industry — includes a rebate option for small consumers and lower income Albertans.   “At the end of the day 60 per cent of Albertans are not going to owe anything under the system,” Hastings-Simon said, adding the program is likely help the province work towards its climate targets.   “With a flat rebate you’re incentivizing folks to reduce emissions further as they end up with more money in their pockets as they reduce emissions.”   The province will also start up a new agency, Energy Efficiency Alberta, that will help homeowners reduce emissions in their households.   On Thursday Minister Ceci announced the $3.4 billion generated from the carbon levy would be dedicated to clean energy projects through a bidding system adjudicated by the Alberta Electric System Operator. Bidding will start at the end of the year.    “By combining private sector incentives, the market guides you to where you should be investing government money,” Hastings-Simon said.   Greenpeace Canada climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema said the new tranche of funds could definitely help jumpstart the province’s renewable energy sector.   “Alberta is finally going to take advantage of the tremendous renewable energy potential that it has,” he said.   He added the government should ensure money is also available to community-based projects. Structural change, to address the way energy is owned in the province, should also part of this new system, he said.   “We need to see a prioritization on municipal, farmer association and First Nation ownership so that the benefits are flowing into our communities rather than out of them,” Hudema said.   The government did set aside $195 million specifically for First Nations’ energy transition, but there has been no indication of how that money will role out.   Jesse Cardinal of Keepers of the Athabasca said she hopes that however those funds are delivered, the process be done in consultation with First Nations.   “Consultation is making a plan together, so I would hope that’s how Alberta is going to go with that $195 million,” Cardinal said. “Different First Nations have different ideas of how they want to move away from coal.”   Cardinal was instrumental in establishing a solar program the Fort Chipewyan First Nation now operates. In 2014, securing funding for the $14,000 project was not easy, she said.   Now two more First Nations, the Beaver Lake Cree First Nation and Fort McMurray First Nation, are looking to implement their own solar projects.   The government’s current funding outline includes specific solar project targets and Cardinal hopes the road will be easier for First Nations going forward.   “That’s the next step we need to take is to ensure dollars are available for everybody,” she said. “This is one step of many steps, the beginning of a long road ahead of how we need to change.”

Image: Premier Rachel Notley and Finance Minister Joe Ceci host a pre-budget town hall in Fort McMurray, the home of the Alberta oilsands. Province of Alberta/Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Nearly $1 trillion (£700bn) is being invested in new coal-fired power plants worldwide despite the fact that the demand for electricity generated from coal has declined for two years in a row, shows a new report released today.

The report, by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and CoalSwarm, warns that this problem of overbuilding is creating an “increasingly severe capacity bubble”.

Last year the global power sector added at least 84 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power capacity. This is a 25 percent increase from 2014.

As the report explains, across the world a generating capacity equal to 1,500 coal plants is either in construction or in various stages of planning. The amount of capital potentially wasted on these plants comes to US$981 billion.

Yet, the average coal plant is running fewer and fewer hours each year.

In China for example, the consumption of coal for electricity generation dropped 3.6 percent last year. Currently, the average Chinese coal plant runs less than half the time – the lowest level since 1969 – and the government recently announced plans to halt new coal plant approvals.

And in India, 11GW of thermal capacity is lying idle. Last year saw the first drop in India’s annual coal power installations since 2006 and the report expects this the drop “to be even more pronounced” in 2016.

“The era of Big Coal is clearly coming to an end,” said Nicole Ghio, senior campaigner for the Sierra Club’s International Climate and Energy campaign. “Coal use keeps falling off a cliff and plants are sitting idle, yet more money is being wasted on misguided attempts at locking in this dirty, dangerous fuel.”

Lauri Myllyvirta, senior global campaigner on Coal and Air Pollution at Greenpeace, described the situation as a “last-ditch push” by an industry which is becoming “rapidly uncompetitive”.

But while coal plant retirements may be growing globally, led by efforts in Europe and the US, this is not happening fast enough to balance out the overbuilding.

As the report warns, the danger of all this potential capacity sitting idle is that, in the end, it might be used but with significant impact on the world’s ability to meet its climate targets under the Paris Agreement.

“Even with no further building of coal plants, emissions from current coal plants will still be 150 percent higher than what is consistent with scenarios limiting warming to 2°C,” it explains, “meaning that most operating and new coal-fired plants will have to be phased out well before the end of their planned lifetime.”

Even building “high efficiency” coal plants is not a viable solution the report states, since this would lock in “large, long-lived carbon emitters, interfering with the need to fully decarbonize the power sector by 2040 in order to limit warming to 2°C”.

Instead, the report argues that the amount wasted on the coal capacity bubble should be direct towards alleviating energy poverty and investing in clean energy such as wind and solar power.

It notes that the nearly $1 trillion wasted is equivalent to the total level of investment needed to provide electricity to the 1.2 billion people currently lacking access to energy according to the International Energy Agency.

This would also be enough money to increase the amount of solar and wind power installed globally by 39 percent, the report finds.

“The hundreds of billions being thrown at coal could instead go toward the booming clean energy sector, helping more than a billion people get access to the clean, reliable electricity that fossil fuels have failed to deliver,” explained Ghio.

In addition to its significant climate impact, the report finds that the additional new proposed coal capacity would result in over 130,000 more premature deaths worldwide each year due to air pollution.

“The clock is ticking on the transition to clean energy,” said Ted Nace, director of CoalSwarm. “Although this research has revealed hundreds of billions being squandered on unneeded coal plants, there’s more at stake here than money.”

Photo: Tennessee Valley Authority via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The end of the fossil fuel era is being signalled loud and clear here at the Paris climate conference as ministers enter the final hours of negotiations.

It's crunch time and everyone is saying the elements needed for an ambitious deal are still on the table. An essential part of this includes establishing a clear long-term goal to guide investor confidence toward a low-carbon society.

And with a 1.5C degree target option currently alive in the text, along with words such as ‘decarbonisation’ and ‘carbon neutral’, the signal couldn’t be clearer.

“The message that we expect this conference to send investors in the fossil fuel industry is get out now,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “There is no future in fossil fuels.”

Pointing to the 1.5C target, Kasia Kosonen from Greenpeace added: “We are now for the first time really having a serious debate around strengthening the temperature target to 1.5C and recognising that 2C is already too much. This de facto means that we are talking about moving away from fossil fuels in a short period of time.”

Policy Framework

And it’s not just those inside the negotiations that are looking for clarity. Businesses have also been calling for a clear long term goal, stressing its importance for investors.

As Michael Jacobs, senior advisor at the New Climate Economy project, explained: “Emissions will be cut through the application of investment and technology in a whole series of infrastructure projects… that’s how you actually do this. And the piece of paper that will be signed is a push to those processes but it doesn’t guarantee them."

“The way it pushes them is it requires government to respond to goals by putting in place policies which will then help drive investment, and demand creation, and technological innovation.”

Alden Meyer, strategy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed – and he’s been to virtually all the major climate talks since 1995.

He explained that a Paris deal must send a clear signal to the global industry that investments can shift from high-polluting industries towards clean energy – a trend he said we were already witnessing. 

“That will affect their decisions on trillions of dollars of asset investments,” Meyer told The Guardian. “If they think that governments are serious about going where the science says we need to go, then they will respond in kind. If they think that governments are wishy-washy, and are wobbling or uncertain, then they will hedge their bets.”

It seems the oil and gas industry is at the very least hearing what’s being said. But will it listen?

The Industry's Future

We’re already seeing dramatic shifts in the energy market signalling the end of coal. According to estimates by commercial intelligence company Wood Mackenzie more than 65 per cent of the world’s coal production is unprofitable as prices decline for the fifth year in a row.

Last Friday at a side-event inside the COP21 delegates’ space, oil executives from Shell, Total, and Statoil, along with industry trade bodies, sat down to discuss the future of their industry. While there was little talk of renewables, the industry figures recognised that there was strong global pressure to cut fossil fuel emissions.

Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of Virginia-based non-profit C2ES – and who was described as being close to negotiators – explained: “Paris has already sent many signals… The [pledges], the presence of world leaders, the agreement itself… [and] the debate on long term goals such as the decarbonisation of the economy.”

He continued: “If all of that comes together what we’ll have is a reshaped, reframed political and policy context. The question for all stakeholders is how do we engage coming out of Paris to achieve the transformation we keep talking about?”

Jean-Francois Gagne, head of technology policy division at the International Energy Agency, told industry figures in the room: “We have to realise the rate at which we decarbonise is going to have to increase, so we need to think about [what we invest in] in the future.”

Solutions which “would give credibility” to the industry, he said, included energy efficiency and renewables, as well as ending coal and reducing methane emissions from gas.

As Margaret Mistry, sustainability communications leader at Statoil, added: “We need to relate to the climate goals that people are talking about outside of our industry. Whether it’s two degrees or net zero emissions. It’s important to speak the same language.”

“From our point of view,” she continued, “the stronger the agreement the better. What we’re seeking is predictability and investment signals. The more certainty… the better it is for us to plan our business.”

Photo: UN Climate Change via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Lord Lawson has taken the extraordinary decision to stand by a “distinguished” academic advisor to his charity who has become embroiled in a new scandal about climate denier groups being secretly funded by oil companies.

The former chancellor and chairman-for-life of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has dug in his heels after a member of his Academic Advisory Council agreed to secretly channel oil money to another anti-science front group.

Professor William Happer, of Princeton University, was contacted by an undercover Greenpeace UK investigator posing as a representative of a fictional Middle East oil company.

He discussed writing a report extolling the benefits of carbon dioxide and passing it through the GWPF’s self-styled peer reviewed process. He asked that the faux oil company donate $8,000 to the US-based CO2 Coalition.

The Charity Commission has confirmed that it would be reviewing the evidence from the Greenpeace campaign as part of an ongoing inquiry into the GWPF’s activities. DeSmog UK broke this story on Tuesday. 

Son-of-a-Bitch

Lawson told the Independent newspaper that he stood by his advisor. “We have a large number of people on our advisory council,” he said. “They’re not part of the staff of the GWPF. They’re distinguished academics. Happer is a distinguished academic.” 

He also claimed the GWPF had a “very thorough peer review process … in many ways better than the standard peer review system in most academic magazines.”

Happer, the American academic at the centre of the scandal, called a Greenpeace researcher “a son of a bitch” when approached immediately before a Senate hearing this week. The video of the altercation has been posted to YouTube.

He confirmed he had taken “not a dime” for his carbon dioxide advocacy but appeared to confirm that the CO2 Coalition had “taken nothing directly” from coal giant Peabody Energy but they had “taken some of my fee.”

Happer did not deny sending the emails when approached by the Independent. He said: “I considered this an opportunity to try to educate more people on what I think is the truth about CO2.”

Dr Benny Peiser, the director of the GWPF, originally told DeSmog UK that “Greenpeace has got it wrong.”

However, as events developed he performed an apparent u-turn and conceded when pressed by reporters from the national press his trustees should “review” the Greenpeace evidence and “decide how to handle advisers.”

Corporate Donors

The former senior lecturer in sports science repeated the oft-stated claim that the GWPF does not accept any funding from anyone with a “significant” interest in energy. 

He told the Independent that the GWPF had “never taken a commission from outside” and had “no corporate donors or any donors to do with energy interests whatsoever”.

Moreover, he confirmed that the GWPF was “discussing with [the Charity Commission] how to handle complaints” made against the climate denying think tank.

The Charity Commission confirmed to DeSmog UK that a file had been opened into the GWPF and the Greenpeace evidence would now also be examined.

A spokesperson added in a further statement: “I should make clear that this is not a formal investigation (statutory inquiry). We are assessing potential concerns that have been identified. We have not drawn conclusions as to what, if any, regulatory role there might be for us.”

Serious Questions

John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace said Lawson’s charity has “serious questions to answer”. He added: “Does it condone a member of its academic council agreeing to be secretly sponsored to write a report by a group purporting to be from a Middle Eastern oil company?”

Lawson has been mired in controversy about the funding of his climate denial think tank from the moment it was launched in November 2009 hours after the Climategate scandal broke and ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference. 

The former Tory chancellor told a powerful Parliamentary committee of MPs that he would not accept donations for gifts from anyone with a “significant” interest in energy companies.

The charity has refused ever since to reveal the identity of any of its donors. However, DeSmog UK has now named several of his benefactors, at least one of whom has held shares in the oil giant BP. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

An undercover investigation by environment group Greenpeace has found some of the world’s most vocal climate science denial groups were willing to accept cash from fossil fuel interests in return for writing articles and reports that reject the impacts of greenhouses gases.

Greenpeace operatives posing as representatives of coal and oil companies were told that while the reports could be produced, there were ways that the sources of funding could be hidden.

Academics affiliated with leading US academic institutions Princeton and Penn State universities are implicated in the Greenpeace research.

According to a report on the investigation at Greenpeace's EnergyDesk website, Princeton's Professor William Happer had revealed he had accepted cash from coal company Peabody Energy in return for providing testimony to US congress but had routed the cash through a climate denial group. Happer also offered his services but said that a new climate science denial group, CO2 Coalition, should be used to channel the funds.

Groups including the Global Warming Policy Foundation and Donors Trust are also alleged to have been complicit in providing "peer review" services for fossil fuel clients and, in the case of Donors Trust, in providing an untraceable route for the fossil fuel payments. 

The story comes as Happer is preparing to give evidence to a congressional hearing of the Senate Subcomittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, chaired by Republican and presidential hopeful Ted Cruz. That hearing is scheduled for Tuesday December 8 and also calls fellow "sceptics" Dr John Christy, of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Dr Judith Curry of Georgia Institute of Technology and conservative commentator Mark Steyn.

A DeSmogBlog investigation into Donors Trust and its partner group Donors Capital Fund found that between 2005 and 2012, some $479 million of income to the two groups was untraceable. Of the amounts that were traceable, DeSmog found that $7.65 million had come from the Knowledge and Progress Fund (KPF). 

On the KPF board are oil billionaire and major Republican benefactor Charles Koch, his wife Liz and son Charles Chase Koch. Richard Fink, a Koch company director and long-standing aide to Charles Koch, is also a KPF director.

The Greenpeace investigation raises questions about the use of the Donors funds in financing climate science denial groups.  Donors Trust, together with oil giant Exxon, have also funded the work of Harvard-Smithsonian affiliated researcher Dr Willie Soon, who claims carbon dioxide cannot change the climate. 

Greenpeace also claims that CO2 Coalition board member William O'Keefe, a former Exxon lobbyist, had suggested in an email to Happer that Donors Trust be used as a route to conceal cash from a fictional Middle eastern oil and gas company.

The investigation also targeted Happer's work with the London-based contrarian group the Global Warming Policy Foundation, founded by former UK chancellor Lord Nigel Lawson. Greenpeace wrote: 

Professor Happer, who sits on the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council, was asked by undercover reporters if he could put the industry funded report through the same peer review process as previous GWPF reports they claimed to have been “thoroughly peer reviewed”. Happer explained that this process had consisted of members of the Advisory Council and other selected scientists reviewing the work, rather than presenting it to an academic journal. He added: “I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write for your client. Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.”

Asked for comment by Greenpeace, the GWPF said in a statement that it rejected Greenpeace's investigation, saying any claims it had offered to put a fossil fuel commission report through its own version of peer review were a "fabrication".

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The days of infinite growth in Alberta’s oilsands are over with the Alberta government’s blockbuster climate change announcement on Sunday, which attracted broad support from industry and civil society.

“This is the day that we start to mobilize capital and resources to create green jobs, green energy, green infrastructure and a strong, environmentally responsible, sustainable and visionary Alberta energy industry with a great future,” Premier Rachel Notley said. “This is the day we stop denying there is an issue, and this is the day we do our part.”

Notley and Environment & Parks Minister Shannon Phillips released a 97-page climate change policy plan, which includes five key pillars.

1) Carbon will be priced economy-wide at $30/tonne by 2018.

2) Coal-fired power plants will be phased out by 2030.

3) Oilsands emissions will be capped at 100 megatonnes (Mt) per year (recent Environment Canada figures predicted a 2020 output of 103 Mt from the sector), which amounts to allowing current construction to go ahead, but that’s it. That means to expand production beyond current projects, per barrel emissions will need to be reduced.

4) Methane emissions from oil and gas operations will be cut by 45 per cent in 2025.

5) 30 per cent of all electricity will be generated by renewables by 2030.

It is a staggeringly significant proposal, one that far surpasses anything the former Progressive Conservative government imagined in the course of its 43-year reign. The announcement — delivered at Edmonton’s Telus World of Science — was benefitted by appearances from CEOs of Suncor, Canadian Natural Resource Ltd. (CNRL), Shell and Cenovus, something far-right activist Ezra Levant dismissed by alleging the massive energy companies “don't represent the industry.”

Environmental groups such as the Pembina Institute and Clean Energy Canada were also on stage. Getting all of those players in support of one climate strategy is a huge testament to the leadership of University of Alberta energy economist Andrew Leach, who chaired the climate change panel.

Climate Change Policy Plan Garners Broad Support

With the exception of the rabidly conservative Wildrose Party and former deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk, it seemed every serious player in politics and industry celebrated the announcement. The NDP-affiliated Broadbent Institute, headquartered in Toronto, concluded: “On a public policy Richter scale, Alberta’s new Climate Leadership Plan is an 11.”

Shell Canada announced that “these measures provide predictability and certainty and will help ensure that producers can responsibly develop and grow this significant Canadian resource while also addressing global concerns about climate change.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau congratulated Notley in a tweet now favourited over 1,300 times as “a very positive step in the fight against climate change.”  Political blogger Dave Cournoyer accurately dubbed it a “pigs fly” situation.

All of this means a whole lot given the impending Paris Climate Change Conference (COP 21).

Canada ranks 15th out of 17th countries for greenhouse gas emissions according to the Conference Board of Canada, with Alberta contributing 36 per cent of national emissions in 2013 despite only accounting for 11 per cent of the country’s population.

The expected spike in oilsands expansion was widely expected to nullify all other sources of emissions reductions in the Canada. The fact that Alberta, and by extension Canada, is now going into COP 21 with a detailed plan to address the province’s largest source of emissions – oilsands development and coal-fired power plants – speaks volumes about the desire to be taken seriously on the world stage.

Climate Plan May Increase Social Licence for Oilsands Operations

Another component that ostensibly drove oil execs to hop on the green bandwagon was the need to accrue “social licence,” or the support required to build pipelines to export its products. The veto of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline represents what happens when such social licence isn’t secured.

By addressing runaway emissions, Alberta-based companies might actually stand a chance to build infrastructure like the Energy East pipeline, which would transport 1.1 million barrels of diluted bitumen from Alberta to Quebec and New Brunswick every day.

“The province’s climate strategy may allow our sector to invest more aggressively in technologies to further reduce per barrel emissions in our sector and do our part to tackle climate change,” said Tim McMillan, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ president and chief executive officer, in a statement.

“We encourage the province to follow a balanced approach, recognizing that our sector can only become a global supplier of responsibly produced oil and natural gas if we are competitive on the world stage.”

The fight over pipelines is unlikely to dissipate. While Sunday’s announcement was a giant step in the right direction, it’s still not enough to avoid catastrophic global warming, according to a statement from Greenpeace.

“These policies are important first steps, but much bigger emission reductions will be needed for Alberta to do its part to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius,” Alberta climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema said.

Hudema also noted that the province still has no short or long-term emission reduction targets.

“Targets give an important signal to business, let the world know where Alberta is headed, and help ensure that direction leads to the reductions that science and equity demand,” he said.

The Pembina Institute has historically supported a higher carbon tax than what was proposed on Sunday – with $40/tonne in 2016, $50/tonne in 2017 and $60/tonne in 2018 — but the plan is an indisputably major upgrade from the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER), which taxed Alberta’s largest emitters (103 at last count) at the equivalent of $1.80/tonne.

George Hoberg, professor in the forest department at the University of British Columbia, notes there’s still plenty of work to be done but that: “Today is a day for celebration. Alberta has bent its carbon emissions curve, and provided a lever to Canada to show real climate leadership.”

Ultimately, the future of Canada’s environmental reputation may rely on the work that Trudeau and Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna complete during and after the Paris conference. But Sunday’s announcement out of Alberta sets quite the standard.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The federal government is currently reviewing Arctic drilling laws at the request of the petroleum industry, according to information released through Access to Information legislation.

The memos show a review of the Canada Petroleum Resources Act is underway after Imperial Oil, ExxonMobil, BP and Chevron “requested the [Act] be amended to increase the maximum term of exploration licences to 16 years.”

Licences are currently granted for nine years but the memo, prepared by ministerial staff for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Minister Bernard Valcourt, notes companies want longer licences because “industry’s interest today is in much deeper water and in areas not previously explored.” 

A second memo states industry identified preferred changes to existing law: “Industry stakeholders have identified changes to the regime, which merit consideration, the implementation of which would require either legislative amendment or changes in federal policy.”

Screenshot of internal memo prepared for Minister Valcourt.

Minister Valcourt Ignored Advice, Broke Rules: Documents

The documents, released to Reuters, also show the government refused to take the advice of bureaucrats who recommended the government use an open-bid process to hire a consultant to review the legislation.

Instead Minister Valcourt appointed former National Energy Board member Rowland Harrison even though in an internal memo staff warned hiring Harrison “through a non-competitive process is questionable” and could be seen as “inappropriate.”

The memos recommend Valcourt initiate an external expert review to “lend credibility to the findings.”

Against these warnings Valcourt hired Harrison to perform the review even though the sole-source contract would violate federal rules for contracts worth more than $25,000, the documents show.

“The documents show very clearly that the review is being conducted at the behest of the oil industry, in response to their request that the law be changed so they can keep their Beaufort licences for seven extra years.” Alex Speers-Roesch, Arctic campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, told DeSmog Canada.

“Reading the documents, it’s hard not to conclude that Minister Valcourt has already decided to give the oil industry what they want, and that the review is happening largely to give those changes a veneer of legitimacy.”

Minister Valcourt is campaigning for re-election in the Madawaska-Restigouche riding in New Brunswick.

Arctic Drilling Expensive, Problematic

Last month Shell announced it was abandoning its Arctic drilling plans, citing high costs and difficult conditions.

Shell made the announcement after a test well failed to produce oil and gas at commercial rates. Backing out could cost the company as much as $4.1 billion in charges, according to the Globe and Mail.

Similar difficulties may be on the horizon for Imperial Oil and BP, both of which announced plans to delay drilling activity in the Beaufort Sea, north of Tuktoyaktuk, this summer, blaming short timelines.

Imperial and BP planned to begin drilling in the region by summer 2020, the same year their exploration licences expired.

According to Lee Willis, Imperial Oil’s exploration operations manager, the companies suspended regulatory work for the project, saying “under the current licence term, there is insufficient time to conduct the necessary technical work and complete the regulatory process.”

Imperial Oil and BP purchased exploratory licences from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada for $1.8 billion.

According to Speers-Roesch, companies like Imperial have “seriously underestimated the challenges of offshore Arctic drilling.”

“Now they want the government to bail them out of their own mess by changing laws and weakening safety rules. “

Speers-Roesch pointed out that Imperial and Chevron have already requested the federal government waive oil spill safety rules required for drilling in harsh Arctic conditions.

“Now they’re asking the government to change the leasing rules because Arctic drilling is harder than they realized, the project is taking longer than they thought, and they don’t want to pay for new drilling licences,” Speers-Roesch said.

Valcourt Rushing Review?

The internal documents also show Valcourt wanted a review of the drilling laws completed by October 1, 2015.

Yet in an e-mail to Greenpeace, provided to DeSmog Canada, Harrison disclosed he will not meet that deadline.

“The terms of my appointment require an interim report by December 18 on the specific issue of the length of exploration licences in the Beaufort Sea and a final report by March 15, 2016,” Harrison wrote.

“Once the election is over, I will provide further guidance as to scope and process.”

Speers-Roesch said the internal documents may show some “disagreement” about when the review would be completed.

“This raises serious concerns that Minister Valcourt is improperly rushing an important government review process in order to satisfy timelines dictated to him by the oil industry,” he said.

“Generally Valcourt seems to be rushing this review. Another reason he may have ignored the open-bid process for the review contract is that he wanted to get the review launched before the election, so the next government would be stuck with it.”

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada did not provide comment by time of publication.

Valcourt Arctic memo by mikedesouza

Valcourt Arctic memo2 by mikedesouza

Image: Coast Guard News

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

How did the green movement start and where is it headed? DeSmog UK previewed the new documentary How To Change The World, which depicts a group of idealistic hippies ready to take on the world. In this long-read we speak with Emily Hunter,  environmental activist and daughter of 'eco-hero' Robert Hunter, about today's environmental activism.

As Richard Nixon announced plans to test nuclear bombs in Alaskan waters in the midst of the Vietnam War, Bob Hunter stood on the steps of his high school, burning his college acceptance letter and choosing, instead, to “set off to change the world”.

So begins the film How To Change The World, which tells the story of the young activists who set sail from Vancouver, Canada in 1971 in an old fishing boat to stop the atomic bomb tests, and who would quickly evolve into a passionate and courageous group devoted to saving the whales.

This was the start of the modern environmental movement and the formation of a now global organisation known as Greenpeace.

Written and directed by Jerry Rothwell, the documentary is based on the late Bob Hunter’s writings and chronicles his journey as the leading force behind the group. Kodachrome footage from the time features throughout the film, interspersed with interviews with Greenpeace’s founding members, capturing the highs and lows of their early eco-activism: the struggles and rewards that come with creating a global movement.

Bob Hunter aboard the Greenpeace ship in the 1970s. Photo: Greenpeace

The group of young activists. Photo: Greenpeace

Hunter, who began as a journalist, understood the importance of images in awakening people’s consciousness to the issues facing our world. What we would now call ‘going viral’ Hunter coined as ‘mind bombs’ – messages that resonate around the world.

From Russian whaling harpoons flying over the activists floating in inflatable zodiacs to seal pups being clubbed to death in Newfoundland, the startling and sometimes graphic images give the audience a sense of what it means to ‘bear witness’.

Today, Greenpeace has returned to Alaska in an effort to stop Shell drilling for Arctic oil. Saving the whales is also on the agenda as the NGO seeks to raise awareness of the impacts of seismic testing for oil reserves on Arctic marine mammals.

Surely, though, we can't be right back where we began? Just as the group questioned how best to make a difference, as viewers, we’re left asking how the green movement has evolved since the 1970s and what difference it has made.

To answer these questions and more, DeSmog UK spoke with Emily Hunter, Bob’s daughter and environmental media activist, about the film and today’s modern environmental movement.

KM: As viewers watching the film, or young people trying to get involved, how do you hope this film speaks to them as we move towards the Paris climate conference which, many people are hoping, will put us on the path to ‘changing the world’?

EH: I feel this film is as relevant in the ‘60s and ‘70s as it is today and even more important because our generation needs an inspiring story of ordinary people doing extraordinary things for our planet, now more than ever.

We are facing multiple, multiple crises left, right, and centre. We are facing a political system that is, quite frankly, failing us, failing our generation and our climate future that, now, more than ever we need to be able to see inspiring examples of other young people… who went out there and did change the world. And, in my view, the story isn’t that different because it really just shows our human capacity for trying to effect change and that story is not unique to my father, it’s not unique to Greenpeace, it’s not unique to the ‘70s, it is happening repeatedly again and again today.

In many ways I think the circumstances are similar as what’s shown in the film. It was a young generation then, the youth culture of the ‘70s, that were up against huge, huge political, economic and military interests, for having a pro-arms race, for having nuclear arms in different countries, and facing the huge oppressive policies that were also [creating] this apocalyptic-like scenario for that generation; it seemed impossible, it seemed like an impossible feat to do anything about, but young people didn’t give up and they kept building a movement – and they built a movement, I think, more than just around protesting, it was about having these ‘mind-bomb moments’ as my father would say. Creating these moments that shifted people’s perspectives, that we weren’t just human dominators of the planet but we were human stewards of the planet, and that was the switch in people’s minds.

And today, we face similar circumstances with our climate crisis and again, quite frankly, oppressive policies that are continuing our fossil fuel regime. And again, we feel powerless against it, but I do think we are collectively building our movement, our generation’s movement and now more than ever we need our own mind-bombs to tell us we can still do it, and this is one of those mind-bombs.

KM: So we need more big and powerful mind-bombs to catalyse action?

EH: Absolutely, we need those, but I think those are happening. I think those stories are being told. We have a different medium of course, we’re telling them through digital media, but the stories are getting out there. For example, the 13 activists in Portland on St John’s bridge who hung off the bridge [in August] and were able to push back Shell’s ship [which] is part of their sensitive equipment needed for Arctic oil drilling. That was a mind-bomb moment to me, and that news went around the world.

This film is another mind-bomb moment. I think Paris could potentially be a mind-bomb moment, but even more of a mind-bomb moment if we don’t just make it Paris alone. It has to be beyond Paris. It has to be a moment that continues to fuel our movement and build the transitions we need, not just one that is a make-it-or-break-it moment. We can’t put everything on just Paris alone.

KM: How has the environmental movement changed or stayed the same since it began in the ‘70s with your father?

EH: I think the movement has evolved quite a bit and it’s taken some hard hits, it’s had a couple identity crises along the way. Back in the day, you could galvanise on these singular issues, you could galvanise the populous and effect policy change. Today, I think the traditional tactics of lobbying, focusing on sound science, and some of these traditional tactics that won us the Montreal Protocol, and so forth, aren’t winning us the same fights.

When it comes to climate change we are at a cross-roads in our movement. This requires systemic change and systemic solutions. We can no longer continue on with the fossil fuel-based economy and think that we’re going to shift anything on this issue. So that really requires a massive overhaul, and one that frankly doesn’t benefit short-term politicians or the economic elite, and so that’s really where we need a ground-swell of people who are being the most affected, who are facing the greatest impacts, and actually rise up and start making some of these transitions.

I’m not asking for some massive anarchism. It may sound very leftist but I’m not talking about communism, I’m not talking about any of these things, I’m talking about the economic policies in place and that right now these economies are fundamentally insane and are only benefiting a few, trashing our future – so I do think there are switches that can be made in the short term and long term, such as getting off of dirty fossil fuels, such as switching on to renewables, but also starting to have an economy that isn’t based on fossil fuels and not having political leaders that are very much backing these fossil fuel industries like [Canada’s Prime Minister] Stephen Harper.

Greenpeace zodiac and whaling ships. Photo: Greenpeace

KM: What are the biggest challenges for today’s green movement when it comes to creating this systemic change?

EH: For one, we’re starting to see more and more economies that are going towards more co-operative models, we call that the sharing economy, you can look at it as sustainable growth rather than the infinite growth model. We’re seeing that in terms of, not just car sharing and Airbnb, those are the ones that get all the [attention] for sure, I’m talking about more co-operative living… you see food co-ops, you see housing co-ops, you see places where communities are sharing resources, reducing our impact on the planet and it’s not based on an infinite growth model. Those are part of the short-term [solutions] I see to get us off of fossil fuels and gets our economy running on people.

KM: When it comes to environmental issues, yes you have climate change, but there are many others which Greenpeace and other NGOs are working on, from the Arctic, oceans and forests to pesticides and wildlife. Does the green movement suffer from the fact there are so many things to address? Does it need more unity?

EH: Yeah, previously you could focus on these single issues and policy changes on them and that would effect change. Today, like climate change, I do think we have to have a more interconnected movement because if you look at it from a more macro, birds-eye view, it’s not just all these single issues… if you look at it from a larger perspective it’s the fact that people aren’t happy with where the world has gone, the fact that we do see all these costs, or externalities, of the economy that animals, forests, the air, people, are suffering…

We see all these issues and we’re concerned about all these issues, we’re aware, we’re working on them, we’re trying to find solutions but at the end of the day it is the system change [that’s needed] and we need to start working towards it and transitioning ourselves off of this system that isn’t working for us.

And for young people especially who have a lack of jobs, who are seeing a climate-doomed scenario approaching, who don’t believe in our political system, this system really is not working for us anymore. So I do think those kinds of transitions can be made, but they can be made in small ways. It doesn’t need to be taking on the entire system I’m talking about, it can be taking on smaller community projects.

KM: In the movie, it describes how they wanted to create a movement on the scale of the civil rights movement. Do you think the green movement has become that in itself or is it entirely different?

EH: I do think the environmental movement has become as big as the civil rights or feminism movements, and in some ways I’d say even bigger because it’s integrated into all of our lives, in many, many ways. It’s integrated in terms of our health, it’s integrated in terms of behaviour choices, how much energy we’re using, it’s on all of our minds one way or another, whether people think of themselves as environmentalists or activists or not, the reality is that it has affected almost every sector of society, whether people realise that or not.

We’ve still got a long way to go. As one of my dad’s quotes says ‘it’s a 200-year mop-up operation’, there’s still certainly a long clean-up to go but I think even in the last one or two generations, depending how you look at it, from my parents’ time to my time there’s already been a huge shift in terms of it being on our minds, on our consciousness and [on] some of our behaviours.

Whereas before, in their time, the word 'ecology' didn’t even mean anything, nobody even understood what that meant, so that’s a huge shift. You first have to work at the consciousness shift and behaviour shift before we start to get to the larger things. But I do think we’re in a real period of transitioning. I may be idealistic, but I do think we’re at the beginning of a transition and we need to start working to reset consciousness.

KM: What’s the best way to deal with those opposing the movement, be it fossil fuel companies or climate deniers?

EH: In terms of climate denial, it has brought up a whole other level of psychology that I don’t think we’ve fully faced yet. Climate denial is, at its core, you’re really trying to shift people’s entire world-views, and that’s really not easy work to do. And I do think film and storytelling is a window into which we can start to do some of that work and shift people’s world views and consciousness. And it’s where it’s so essential because in the fight against climate change there are still so many, I mean, some of the politicians in the US are known climate deniers and for a country that still holds a lot of weight in these climate negotiations, that’s really, really dangerous for the rest of us.

That’s where I think there’s still a lot of work to be done, I don’t know if we’ve done all the work in shifting people’s world views as much as we have worked on policy and protesting, we haven’t done the piece of consciousness shifting, at least to our opponents. And that’s really hard work and something we’re struggling with and it’s about psychology.

KM: Greenpeace began in Canada, and as a Canadian you’re aware of the country’s climate track record. Canada is doing very little to tackle climate change, yet it can feel as though this isn't talked about as much as it maybe should be. Do you agree?

EH: Canada, and Australia, are huge pieces of the climate puzzle that are being ignored or given less attention to. When we talk about keeping fossil fuels in the ground, a big portion of that includes not just American coal but includes Australian coal… and most of the Canadian tar sands need to be kept in the ground if we have any chance of facing two degrees Celsius [of global warming].

So, as we keep negotiating these two degrees, the reality is we’re not putting force on these countries to ensure that that happens by keeping their fossil fuel reserves in the ground. They play such instrumental pieces of our climate future and the pressure needs to be put on at an international level right now; [these] two countries are acting like two climate enemies of humanity rather than the nature lovers that we still project them to be. I do live in Canada and we have a 10-year-old reputation as though we’re protecting the environment when we do anything but that. The world needs to know that.

KM: Canada’s federal election is coming up in October. What would you say to Canadians looking for change?

EH: A very easy step to take when it comes to our climate future is this next Canadian election in October. We have a real chance now, an opportunity to get one of the biggest enemies of the climate future, the Harper regime, out of politics. He has not only done huge damage to our environment, forced us into becoming a fossil fuel based economy, but he’s also done tremendous harm to our democracy and our civil liberties to even being an activist anymore and having certain freedoms of speech, having certain internet access. If he had his full way, it would look more like a dictatorship than it would a democracy, I know that sounds drastic but it’s true.

Honestly, we have a chance here. I don’t think voting is everything and all of our democratic participation, I do think we need to be involved much more than that, but we have a real shot here and it’s a very simple step to take as Canadians to actually be involved in this next election, if we care anything about our future.

KM: Finally, where do you see the green movement heading now, what’s the way forward?

EH: The way I see forward is, I see that the movement is becoming much more interconnected, we are connecting with the justice movement, we’re connecting the dots with the First Nations movement. And I think we are becoming a stronger force in the world and connecting our issues and seeing it’s much more systemic.

To me though, the missing piece that we’re still not feeling comfortable addressing is that economic piece. The reality is that these negotiations are not just politically driven, they’re economically driven. Until we really start tackling the economic system, that is the core issue to me in all of our fights, and frankly capitalism is at the core of a lot of this, and I know we’re beginning to talk about that more with Naomi Klein’s book and others, but we’re not really doing it in terms of our activism, even Occupy, most people talk about it very dismissively, and to me there was a core there of addressing our economic centre of all of our issues that I think we need to do more of. That, to me, is where we need to connect our movements to and begin to unravel and transition ourselves off of a capitalist state which frankly isn’t supporting us or the climate anymore.

How To Change The World premiered on September 9 and is currently playing in cinemas in the UK and US.

All photos credited to Greenpeace  

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.